I/P: post-semitism in the desert of the deal

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > I/P: post-semitism in the desert of the deal

emanresu tnuocca: Sep 2, 2011; by Athanatos

See, someone dropped into the thread saying 'Assad and Saddam are worse than Bibi' and instead of just going 'Well, duh' we get carried into arguing about minutiae.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 17:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 16:42

MonsieurChoc: Oct 12, 2013; Every species can smell its own extinction.

emanresu tnuocca posted:

See, someone dropped into the thread saying 'Assad and Saddam are worse than Bibi' and instead of just going 'Well, duh' we get carried into arguing about minutiae.

Being worse than Bibi unfortunately isn't that hard, even when looking only at the 20th Century. :smith:

# ? Dec 3, 2014 17:52

Plek: Jul 30, 2009

Dead Reckoning posted:

Actually, using incendiary weapons against combatants isn't a war crime, despite what is popularly believed. As to the second point, something has to use its toxicity as a primary wounding mechanism to be considered a chemical weapon, since a lot of materials used in military weapons (lead, for example, as well as many other metals) are toxic to humans. In the case of White Phosphorus, its chemical toxicity is very much secondary to its burning action.

I'd call redox reactions fairly toxic :colbert:

. I did just assume napalm and the like were kinda war-crimey but it is good to know otherwise. So I guess dusting people with alum and magnesium powder is a war crime because of the toxicity. So better drop them both and literally melt them before they get poisoned.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 18:29

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Some levity, from Tal Schneider's latest blog post:

Shelly Yechimovich, fomer Labor chair, takes a photo on Lapid's last day as Finance Minister.

Summery of Schneider's points in English:

Main argument in Likud is whether to have elections for leadership and for the Knesset list on the same day or separately. Having them on the same day is cheaper and better for Netanyahu.
Meretz are panicking because they already had a party conference for late Dec and now they're going to have to tie it in with primaries.
Labor are talking to everyone they can to spice things up, and are looking into primaries soon, as well.
Yesh Atid are giving zero shits about showing up to vote for anything, and are set to give a "serious speech" as opposed to the lackluster nonsense they had before.
It is final: the threshold is going to be 3.25%. MK Ahmad Tibi is very much in favor of a unified Arab party to make sure they can get anyone in, but it is by no means a consensus. A big Arab media mogul says that there is 70% support in the Arab population for a unified list, with proportions set up by a public opinion survey. If this is actually true that's a big deal, if 70% of Arabs actually vote it's more than they have in past elections, if I am not mistaken.
Zuheir Bahlul, a popular sports commentator and Israeli Arab, is considering joining Meretz, after years of refusing to get into politics. My aside: Journalism to Knesset is a pretty common transition in Israel: both Lapids, Yechimovich and Nitzan Horovitz all did this.
The chairmen of the two members in Jewish Home, Bennett (New Mafdal) and Uri Ariel (National Unity) sat down to consider their future together, and it seemed to be amicable according to them.
Kahalon's party doesn't have an actual name, but is starting a social media presence.
Haim Amsalem, late of Shas, was saying he would join Likud, but is now considering joining Kahalon instead. This may lead to Likud losing more members than originally expected.
Netanyahu has chosen Nir Hefetz, an adviser with dubiously successful history in the position, as his PR flak for this election. People around him are very confused.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 18:38

emanresu tnuocca: Sep 2, 2011; by Athanatos

Israeli media is reporting another 'terror attack', A Palestinian ~~man~~teenager (edit: he's 16) tried to stab shoppers in a supermarket in Mishor Edomim, he managed to injure 3 people before he was shot by a customer who had a pistol, now here's the twist: different from all other similar incidents of the customer only shot at his feet and managed to not kill him on the spot, the perpetrator was arrested along with another two Palestinian men who might have had something to do with according to the police.

Seriously amazed that an Israeli is physically able to shoot a Palestinian without aiming for the center of mass and/or emptying a whole magazine into him.

emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Dec 3, 2014

# ? Dec 3, 2014 18:51

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

emanresu tnuocca posted:

Israeli media is reporting another 'terror attack', A Palestinian ~~man~~teenager (edit: he's 16) tried to stab shoppers in a supermarket in Mishor Edomim, he managed to injure 3 people before he was shot by a customer who had a pistol, now here's the twist: different from all other similar incidents of the customer only shot at his feet and managed to not kill him on the spot, the perpetrator was arrested along with another two Palestinian men who might have had something to do with according to the police.

Seriously amazed that an Israeli is physically able to shoot a Palestinian without aiming for the center of mass and/or emptying a whole magazine into him.

This Israeli civilian is literally more professional than US police.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 18:58

Doflamingo: Sep 20, 2006

Absurd Alhazred posted:

This Israeli civilian is literally more professional than US police.

I heard on the news that he a) was a paratrooper in the IDF and b) in recent years has been literally one of Bibi's personal bodyguards, so.. yeah.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:01

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Dead Reckoning posted:

Actually, using incendiary weapons against combatants isn't a war crime, despite what is popularly believed. As to the second point, something has to use its toxicity as a primary wounding mechanism to be considered a chemical weapon, since a lot of materials used in military weapons (lead, for example, as well as many other metals) are toxic to humans. In the case of White Phosphorus, its chemical toxicity is very much secondary to its burning action.

Using incendiaries against civilian targets, or on military targets in close proximity to civilian targets or in civilian areas, is absolutely illegal though!

# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:08

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

Main Paineframe posted:

Using incendiaries against civilian targets, or on military targets in close proximity to civilian targets or in civilian areas, is absolutely illegal though!

Really? This seems odd. What international law is it based on?

# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:10

Xander77: Apr 6, 2009; Fuck it then. For another pit sandwich and some 'tater salad, I'll post a few more.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

This Israeli civilian is literally more professional than US police.

Not to go all TFR on you, but shooting someone in the feet is "literally" the least "professional" thing you can do.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:12

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Xander77 posted:

Not to go all TFR on you, but shooting someone in the feet is "literally" the least "professional" thing you can do.

Disabling an assailant rather than killing them when possible. Seems pretty pro to me. But who am I to say? :shrug:

# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:17

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Disabling an assailant rather than killing them when possible. Seems pretty pro to me. But who am I to say?

Most of the US military is squarely taught only to shoot for center of mass, and most of our police force is made up of ex military.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:18

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Disabling an assailant rather than killing them when possible. Seems pretty pro to me. But who am I to say?

Guns aren't meant to be used as non-lethal weapons, and you put yourself and others in more danger by attempting to do so. You don't point a gun at someone you aren't prepared to kill. If the shot ends up being non-lethal, that's a bonus. This is taught in every concealed carry class.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:20

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Main Paineframe posted:

Using incendiaries against civilian targets, or on military targets in close proximity to civilian targets or in civilian areas, is absolutely illegal though!

This is not only untrue, (the blanket prohibition only applies to air-dropped incendiary weapons,) but also irrelevant to what Plek said.

team overhead smash posted:

Really? This seems odd. What international law is it based on?

It comes from The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Protocol III, which states in part:

quote:

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

� 3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

Israel isn't a signatory to the protocol, but you could probably make a case that a normative prohibition exists.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:46

MonsieurChoc: Oct 12, 2013; Every species can smell its own extinction.

Not like anyone really follows International Laws these days...

# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:52

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

CommieGIR posted:

Most of the US military is squarely taught only to shoot for center of mass, and most of our police force is made up of ex military.

fool_of_sound posted:

Guns aren't meant to be used as non-lethal weapons, and you put yourself and others in more danger by attempting to do so. You don't point a gun at someone you aren't prepared to kill. If the shot ends up being non-lethal, that's a bonus. This is taught in every concealed carry class.

Okay, I'll admit right now that I could easily not know poo poo about nothing, but in my month-long desk-jockey version of IDF basic training, I was taught that our arms use protocol when defending an outpost was:

"Halt."
"Halt, or I'll shoot."
Clearly point weapon at assailant.
Shoot for the legs to disable.
Shoot to kill.

From this I extrapolate that you would generally shoot to disable if possible, and only shoot to kill as a last resort. I am willing to concede that this was an unwarranted extrapolation, though.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:13

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Okay, I'll admit right now that I could easily not know poo poo about nothing, but in my month-long desk-jockey version of IDF basic training, I was taught that our arms use protocol when defending an outpost was:

"Halt."

"Halt, or I'll shoot."

Clearly point weapon at assailant.

Shoot for the legs to disable.

Shoot to kill.

From this I extrapolate that you would generally shoot to disable if possible, and only shoot to kill as a last resort. I am willing to concede that this was an unwarranted extrapolation, though.

Nope. From both Basic Training and refresher courses: Say Halt, and if they fail to comply, raise weapon and repeat, then if they fail to comply shoot for center of mass. Shoot to kill, as you really cannot realistically shoot to wound as a standard infantryman.

If the IDF trains like that, not only are they very sure of the marksmanship of their infantry, they trust them to make judgement calls about when to kill or wound.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:15

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

CommieGIR posted:

Nope. From both Basic Training and refresher courses: Say Halt, and if they fail to comply, shoot for center of mass. Shoot to kill, as you really cannot realistically shoot to wound as a standard infantryman.

That seems reasonable.

quote:

If the IDF trains like that, not only are they very sure of the marksmanship of their infantry, they trust them to make judgement calls about when to kill or wound.

In retrospect, it just feeds into a lot of IDF doctrine being compassion theater on the battlefield.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:17

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Let's just nip in the bud the idea that military RoE, law enforcement escalation of force, and the rights and responsibilities of an individual defending themselves from armed attack are in any way related to each other.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:21

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Dead Reckoning posted:

Let's just nip in the bud the idea that military RoE, law enforcement escalation of force, and the rights and responsibilities of an individual defending themselves from armed attack are in any way related to each other.

I mean, it does relate in the sense that it would be interesting to see how IDF RoE informed this security person's decisions to defend others. I don't think it was self-defense but more of defending others, in which case if this is an irresponsible use of arms, the ultimately reasonable result does not change the nature of the risk of potential harm which might be caused if this becomes acceptable behavior.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:24

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

Dead Reckoning posted:

It comes from The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Protocol III, which states in part:

Israel isn't a signatory to the protocol, but you could probably make a case that a normative prohibition exists.

I've looked it up and it does appear in the International Red Cross's Customary International Humanitarian Law database but in a less strict form of "If incendiary weapons are used, particular care must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects."

You can see the law here and the rationale here

Just for the record I'm fully supportive of such laws and the reason I called it odd is just that it doesn't seem to gel with how other conventional armaments can be used. With a bomb you could drop it on a military target and cause significant civilian casualties as long as the amount of civilian casualties was not disproportionate to the military objective achieved. I'm assuming that it must be the nature of the suffering caused by incendiary weapons, as well as the potential for it to go out of control, which means incendiary weapons are held to a higher standard.

team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Dec 3, 2014

# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:27

Brainbread: Apr 7, 2008

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Okay, I'll admit right now that I could easily not know poo poo about nothing, but in my month-long desk-jockey version of IDF basic training, I was taught that our arms use protocol when defending an outpost was:

"Halt."

"Halt, or I'll shoot."

Clearly point weapon at assailant.

Shoot for the legs to disable.

Shoot to kill.

From this I extrapolate that you would generally shoot to disable if possible, and only shoot to kill as a last resort. I am willing to concede that this was an unwarranted extrapolation, though.

Just a note on "shoot to disable".
- Limbs are really, really hard to hit when someone is moving
- Shooting and then attempting to assess whether or not it worked is dangerous when someone is attacking you or other people
- Limbs still have arteries, and pretty much shooting people anywhere is lethal/has the potential to be

Realistically, if you shoot at someone you might as well shoot them in the centre of mass because its a lot more likely to work, you're less likely to miss, and firearms are not meant to disable people. Less-than-lethal weapons exist because guns are really bad at not killing people.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:28

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

uh, you guys both skipped over warning shots. :ohdear:

# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:39

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Brainbread posted:

Just a note on "shoot to disable".
- Limbs are really, really hard to hit when someone is moving
- Shooting and then attempting to assess whether or not it worked is dangerous when someone is attacking you or other people
- Limbs still have arteries, and pretty much shooting people anywhere is lethal/has the potential to be

Realistically, if you shoot at someone you might as well shoot them in the centre of mass because its a lot more likely to work, you're less likely to miss, and firearms are not meant to disable people. Less-than-lethal weapons exist because guns are really bad at not killing people.

I may be misremembering it. The rationale for shooting at the legs may have been more to shoot to intimidate, as in unlikely to hit but likely to show you mean business. Anybody who did a full combat/guard duty service with the IDF want to weigh in here? It's been more than ten years for me.

Volkerball posted:

uh, you guys both skipped over warning shots.

Yeah, I think maybe I'm mixing up shooting the legs and shooting in the air as a warning shot or something. As I said, it's been a while.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:41

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Absurd Alhazred posted:

I mean, it does relate in the sense that it would be interesting to see how IDF RoE informed this security person's decisions to defend others.

If I'm acting as a military member in an overseas conflict, I can shoot people wearing an enemy uniform even if they are not posing an immanent threat, and can attack members of a retreating enemy formation. However, I understand that in my civilian capacity I can't blast a dude I see wearing gang colors downtown, nor can I shot someone who rattles my doorknob and flees when I turn the light on.

team overhead smash posted:

I'm assuming that it must be the nature of the suffering caused by incendiary weapons, as well as the potential for it to go out of control, which means incendiary weapons are held to a higher standard.

That's the main justification. It's a response to the massive casualties that resulted from urban firestorms in WWII. Even if a factory is a lawful target, a firebombing raid would likely be considered disproportionate due to the high probability of the fire spreading to nearby areas.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:51

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Standard lethal force doctrine might not apply so rigidly. If you've supposedly got a terror wave going on it would make sense to wound and capture one of the perpetrators.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 21:08

tsa: Feb 3, 2014

There's an enormous difference between an outpost (which I assume is fairly isolated) and a crowded supermarket. Trying to aim at limbs makes is much more likely that you miss, which then means an unintended person can get killed / wounded. Besides that, a person shot in their legs can still shoot you, throw a knife at you, someone else etc.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

I may be misremembering it. The rationale for shooting at the legs may have been more to shoot to intimidate, as in unlikely to hit but likely to show you mean business. Anybody who did a full combat/guard duty service with the IDF want to weigh in here? It's been more than ten years for me.

Don't 2nd and 3rd shots tend to be higher than the first? I honestly don't know how hard is it to continuously fire at the legs but it seems like your later shots would be at the chest anyway. Though the problem with shooting above the head is where the bullet ends up.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 21:24

Obliterati: Nov 13, 2012; Pain is inevitable.
Suffering is optional.
Thunderdome is forever.

Don't Finnish police have a pretty reliable shoot to wound policy? I remember this exact same chat coming up in the Brown shooting thread when we had a bunch of guys going on about how drawing a gun means it must be fed with blood or whatever.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 21:53

The Insect Court: Nov 22, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

Panzeh posted:

Nobody goes around calling the Iraqi Army the Most Moral Army in the world. That's the difference.

What kind of sadistic psychopath would be fine with the IDF killing and brutalizing Palestinian children as long as they didn't insist they were the "most moral army"?

I guess the same sort whose problem isn't that IDF bombs are killing Palestinian children but that those bombs are being dropped from F-16s the IDF got American foreign aid money for purchasing. It's just such an amorally narcissistic worldview, the idea that the killing of innocent non-combatants isn't a problem but only how they reflect on one's self-image. Can someone explain to me why their ego is more important than Palestinian lives?

# ? Dec 3, 2014 23:25

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

The Insect Court posted:

What kind of sadistic psychopath would be fine with the IDF killing and brutalizing Palestinian children as long as they didn't insist they were the "most moral army"?

I guess the same sort whose problem isn't that IDF bombs are killing Palestinian children but that those bombs are being dropped from F-16s the IDF got American foreign aid money for purchasing. It's just such an amorally narcissistic worldview, the idea that the killing of innocent non-combatants isn't a problem but only how they reflect on one's self-image. Can someone explain to me why their ego is more important than Palestinian lives?

That the US is supplying Israel with these weapons has been a point of conversation in this and the previous threads several time. Not only are your posts low-effort, but you don't even bother following the threads. :frogout:

# ? Dec 3, 2014 23:52

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Absurd Alhazred posted:

That the US is supplying Israel with these weapons has been a point of conversation in this and the previous threads several time. Not only are your posts low-effort, but you don't even bother following the threads.

How did you think he got his custom tag?

# ? Dec 3, 2014 23:52

syscall girl: Nov 7, 2009; by FactsAreUseless; Fun Shoe

SedanChair posted:

*eyebrows raise, leave forehead*

There is a lot of silly stuff going on in this conversation.

I guess a 'chemical weapon' would refer primarily to things you can inhale? Except when you get white phosphorous on you you end up inhaling it along with your clothes and your skin so maybe that was in bad faith or ignorance or wherever those intersect.

# ? Dec 3, 2014 23:53

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Absurd Alhazred posted:

That the US is supplying Israel with these weapons has been a point of conversation in this and the previous threads several time. Not only are your posts low-effort, but you don't even bother following the threads.

America makes money off its arms exports, why should I be against Israel's purchase of another F-35 squadron with optionals for future solid state laser upgrade after naval proving demonstrates efficacy?

# ? Dec 3, 2014 23:56

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

My Imaginary GF posted:

America makes money off its arms exports, why should I be against Israel's purchase of another F-35 squadron with optionals for future solid state laser upgrade after naval proving demonstrates efficacy?

Because of what they will do with it. :doh:

# ? Dec 3, 2014 23:58

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

CommieGIR posted:

Because of what they will do with it.

I am absolutely in favor of suckering the Israelis into buying the F-35 with the knowledge that doing so will only impair their military readiness.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 00:09

syscall girl: Nov 7, 2009; by FactsAreUseless; Fun Shoe

Jack of Hearts posted:

I am absolutely in favor of suckering the Israelis into buying the F-35 with the knowledge that doing so will only impair their military readiness.

I laughed when I read that England was actually trading us old Harriers for F-35s. But also paying for the F-35s. Which definitely won't kill more marines than the Harriers did. At all.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 00:38

snyprmag: Oct 9, 2005

MIGF has stated before that the US 'makes money' from our relationship with Israel, but I can't seem to find any evidence to support that online.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_military_relations#Foreign_military_sales only has 01-05 data for sales but it still has purchases < aid. And even if they were even the majority of the purchases go to private companies, not back to the Government.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 01:03

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

snyprmag posted:

MIGF has stated before that the US 'makes money' from our relationship with Israel, but I can't seem to find any evidence to support that online.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_military_relations#Foreign_military_sales only has 01-05 data for sales but it still has purchases < aid. And even if they were even the majority of the purchases go to private companies, not back to the Government.

Not to mention the amount of funding we give them

# ? Dec 4, 2014 01:12

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

If you really want to make money off of arms exports, we should really be talking about selling to Iran. Iran's biggest competition are nations that already have American firepower, and we can sell Iran everything from missiles to assault rifles to even simple trucks. Israel just needs a few high end weapons, Iran needs every level of hardware and we could even maybe get them to give us a discount on some oil in exchange.

MIGF, would you be against such a profitable venture?

# ? Dec 4, 2014 01:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 16:42

MonsieurChoc: Oct 12, 2013; Every species can smell its own extinction.

Guys, you all fell for the classic trap: acknowledging MIGF's existence.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 03:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > I/P: post-semitism in the desert of the deal

«‹›260 »